So the lab should have just ignored fingerprints that appeared to match?
That would have been a screw up deserving of headlines. As it was the fingerprints were very close and matched in enough ways to be worth pursuing. Later they found out that the prints, while close, were not in fact a match.
What should they have done? Just ignored it then?
No use argueing with you. You are one of the people I was talking about in my first post. You have proven it over and over and removed all doubt.